LUCKY CONFECTIONARY PVT LTD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all the three writ petitions similar questions of law and facts are involved. They have been heard together and are being disposed of this order.

(2.) IN C.W.J.C. No. 11266/99 the petitioner is engaged in business of manufacture of confectionary known as its brand name 'Lucky ' and for manufacturing the same the petitioner purchases and stores sugar. In C.W.J.C. No. 11329/99 the petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacture of biscuit known by its brand name 'Parle ' and for manufacturinig biscuit the petitioner purchases and stroes sugar, vanaspati and maida. In C.W.J.C. No. 11404/99 the petitioner is engaged in manufacture of busicuit known by its brand name 'Lucky ' and for manufacturing the petitioner stores sugar, vanaspati and maida. They have filed the writ petition for declaration that provisions of Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984, hereinafter referred to as Unification Order are not applicable to the petitioners as they purchases articles for manufacturing and not for sale. The articles purchased are consumed for manufacturing and its products are not specified commodities in Schedule I of the Unification Order. Under wrong advice they have obtained licence under the Unification Order although not required under law. Articles are purchased by the petitioners and stored for the purpose of consumption for manufacturing and not for the purpose of sale. Therefore, petitioners are not dealer within the meaning of provisions of Unification Order. Petitioners tried to impress the authorities that they are not engaged in purchase and sale of the articles and as such they will not be called dealer within the meaning of Unification Order and are not required to obtain licence or renewal of the licence but they are not ready to accept the legal position and as such writ petition has been filed for declaration as indicated above.

(3.) THE submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that they are not engaged in purchase and sale of the essential articles. They purchase essential articles for manufacturing. They never engaged in sale of essential articles, therefore, they are not dealer within the meaning of Unification order. The products are also not specified in Schedule I of the Unification Order and as such Unification Order has no application, whereas counsel for the respondents submitted that petitioners are storing the essential articles not for personal consumption and as such Unification order is applicable in the case of the petitioners.